search for: wdyt

I posted a ticket to lighthouse: http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5645-rspec/tickets/595-deprecate-integrate_views Please put your comments and thoughts there, as that is the best place for that discussion. I wanted to make it more "visible" so it could get wide community participation in case there are folks who absolutely feel integrate_views is necessary (considering that we

On Feb 7, 2012, at 4:04 PM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 3:46 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: > On Feb 7, 2012, at 2:07 PM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > > Slightly formatted/commented patch. > > WDYT? > > This seems to work fine, except that reading a field from a const > AttrConst is not a constant expression in C++03, so the "set" > declarations (ParameterOnly, FunctionOnly, VarArgsIncompatible, > and MutuallyIncompatible) still require a global constructor. > OMG...

As I think I previously mentioned, there is an incompatibility with rails 1.2.1 and sqlite3 3.3.8. see: http://weblog.rubyonrails.org/2007/1/29/using-sqlite3-with-rails and: http://weblog.rubyonrails.org/2007/2/6/rails-1-2-2-sqlite3-gems- singular-resources Sqlite is now at 3.3.13. Because of this, if a developer is trying to create a patch for rspec_on_rails, he will have one of the

On Feb 7, 2012, at 2:07 PM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > Slightly formatted/commented patch. > WDYT? This seems to work fine, except that reading a field from a const AttrConst is not a constant expression in C++03, so the "set" declarations (ParameterOnly, FunctionOnly, VarArgsIncompatible, and MutuallyIncompatible) still require a global constructor. You can split the values into s...

...ple.com> wrote: > On Feb 7, 2012, at 4:04 PM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 3:46 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: > >> On Feb 7, 2012, at 2:07 PM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: >> > Slightly formatted/commented patch. >> > WDYT? >> >> This seems to work fine, except that reading a field from a const >> AttrConst is not a constant expression in C++03, so the "set" >> declarations (ParameterOnly, FunctionOnly, VarArgsIncompatible, >> and MutuallyIncompatible) still require a global co...

Hi Not sure if this is more Rails or RSpec related... I''ve got an app with an RJS view that updates a div in a page with the contents of a partial. The partial contains a non-ascii character namely a pound sign. I set up a simple test app with this RJS view: page.replace_html("test_div", :partial => "test_action") and this _test_action.rhtml:

...e'd have to detect that and write this in-line: IRB.SetInsertPoint(BB, IP, (IP != BB->end()) ? IP->getDebugLoc() : IBR.getCurrentDebugLocation()) I do like that this approach forces clients of IRBuilder to be intentional about setting debug locs, but it looks like it could get messy. Wdyt of adopting parts of both solutions? I.e, we'd have the following methods: // Transition API - SetInsertPointAndDebugLoc(BasicBlock *) - SetInsertPointAndDebugLoc(Instruction *) - SetInsertPointAndDebugLoc(BasicBlock *, BasicBlock::iterator) // Future API - SetInsertPoint(BasicBlock *, const...

Hi! TL;DR WDYT of adding zlib decompression capabilities to LLVMObject library? ld.gold from GNU binutils has --compress-debug-sections=zlib option, which uses zlib to compress .debug_xxx sections and renames them to .zdebug_xxx. binutils (and GDB) support this properly, while LLVM command line tools don't:...

...github.com/idosch/linux/commit/cf84b277511ec80fe565c41271abc6b2e2f629af.patch Advantages compared to the previous approach are that we do not need a new bit in the skb and that overhead is kept to a minimum when feature is disabled. Disadvantage is that overhead is higher when feature is enabled. WDYT? To be clear, merely asking for feedback on the general approach, not code review. Thanks

...this is merely a proposal. In most cases you wouldn''t use all of these. In fact, you may not use any of them if you prefer the Object Mother approach (helper methods that create the state you want to start with). But this would give you a lot of choice at both global and granular levels. WDYT? Too confusing? Too limiting? Just right? Thanks, David

...out 2 years already. I get the following binary sizes of 483.xalancbmk benchmark from SPEC 2006 (clang from trunk vs. gcc 4.6.x with Google patches): 11026073 Xalan_base.clang_O0 45882529 Xalan_base.clang_O0_g 11079688 Xalan_base.gcc_O0 16437776 Xalan_base.gcc_O0_gmlt 54221056 Xalan_base.gcc_O0_g WDYT of implementing similar option in Clang? Clearly, there are two options: 1. Don't modify Clang codegen, but instead erase all the extra debug info by LLVM (pro - there actually is StripDebugInfo pass already, but it's very short and easy, and would have to be patched a lot). 2. Emit less in...

I am completely baffled by this one - My guess is that there is no pure ruby way to do this - but how could I set up a spec to test that one method is an alias of another? Thanks for any help, Scott

Hi, I''m trying out RSpec with the heckle option (for mutation testing). Problem is that heckle goes into an infinite loop when running it on an example. I want to send a "--verbose" to heckle but can''t find a way to do that through the spec binary. Since this is not an uncommon situation when using heckle I would like this to be supported in some way by RSpec.

I''d like to test that my model attributes are properly protected against mass assignment, something like: it "should NOT update :balance on mass assignment" do @account.attributes = {:balance => 1000} @account.balance.should_not == 1000 end instead of doing each attribute manually however, I''d like to automate it so I can pass a list of attributes which CAN be

...very broad name > and there are lots of things that “could be useful for frontends” - > and a lot of definitions of what a “frontend" is. Fair point. I'm open to suggestions wrt. the name. FWIW, the name was suggested because it was not only supposed to be OpenMP stuff (soon). > WDYT about naming it something like "lib/OpenMPGen” and > generalizing/renaming it later when the scope is more clear? I can do that. It was also proposed to do "lib/Frontend/OpenMP" or something similar. Would that help or would you prefer not to have the top level "Frontend&quo...

...rder_acq_rel = 1 << 4, memory_order_seq_cst = 1 << 5 }; We currently have a workaround (in the system header) that makes this non-blocking, but it would be good to cleanly address this problem. Removing the "using namespace" from the header seems like the cleanest solution. WDYT? Thanks, Anna. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160701/419cf3d0/attachment.html>

...the_mock.expects(:foo).with(1,2) {:bar} the_mock.expects(:baz).with(3,4).returns(:foobar) Here is an ActiveRecord type example of the mock block syntax: User.mocks do find(''3'').once {user} destroy(7) end I don''t think this would be too difficult to implement either. WDYT? Thanks, Brian Takita

Slightly formatted/commented patch. WDYT? --kcc On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > >> I see the problem. >> Let me try to come up with a solution that does not involve cons...

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 3:46 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: > On Feb 7, 2012, at 2:07 PM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > > Slightly formatted/commented patch. > > WDYT? > > This seems to work fine, except that reading a field from a const > AttrConst is not a constant expression in C++03, so the "set" > declarations (ParameterOnly, FunctionOnly, VarArgsIncompatible, > and MutuallyIncompatible) still require a global constructor. OMG, yes...

...l at apple.com> wrote: > On Feb 7, 2012, at 4:04 PM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 3:46 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: >> On Feb 7, 2012, at 2:07 PM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: >> > Slightly formatted/commented patch. >> > WDYT? >> >> This seems to work fine, except that reading a field from a const >> AttrConst is not a constant expression in C++03, so the "set" >> declarations (ParameterOnly, FunctionOnly, VarArgsIncompatible, >> and MutuallyIncompatible) still require a global c...